In Tel Aviv, a festering scandal reaches the top of Israeli society. In London, a shrug of a regulator’s shoulders. Welcome to the latest twist in the baffling story of the Jewish Chronicle.
You may remember the origins of the mystery: a fake story from a dodgy source published by the JC last September. The article, under the byline of Elon Perry, echoed the talking points of Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and was alleged to be based on documents uncovered in the Gaza Strip.
It all turned out to be rubbish. After Israeli journalists exposed the nonsense, the JC announced an inquiry. The very next day—13th September—the paper concluded its “thorough investigation”. A two-paragraph statement offered no explanation of how it had come to publish such manipulated tosh but assured readers that the paper “maintains the highest journalistic standards.” Phew. Just imagine if it didn’t.
The statement said it had removed the story from its website because the paper was not satisfied with some of the claims Perry had made about his background. It did not address the more pertinent question of whether or not the story was true. It wasn’t.
Three months later, the editor, Jake Wallis Simons, announced that he would be stepping down to write a book. Did the owner of the JC decide that heads must roll? Who’s to say, since we are not allowed to know who the ultimate owner of the JC is. It was rescued from almost inevitable insolvency by a consortium led by BBC director Robbie Gibb. But who actually stumped up the £3.5m to keep the title afloat, and why, remains a riddle.
The “leak” to the JC was suspiciously like an equally ropey story planted on the German tabloid Bild. The two events piqued the interest of the Israeli security service, Shin Bet. It didn’t take long for them to arrest Eli Feldstein, a spokesman for Netanyahu, who had previously worked for the far-right security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
Israeli censorship laws prevent us from knowing all the details, but it has been reported that Feldstein is one of five people arrested in connection with the alleged leaking of documents which—hostage relatives claim—may have undermined a ceasefire and the release of hostages.
Feldstein has reportedly argued that he was acting on orders from his superiors and has been made a scapegoat.
Benny Gantz, who until recently was in Netanyahu’s war cabinet, said that if sensitive security information was used for a “political survival campaign”, it would not only be a criminal offence, but “a crime against the nation”.
The revelations also led to intense criticism from the families of the hostages, who said it implied an active campaign to discredit them, calling it “a moral low that has no depth. This is a fatal injury to the remnants of trust between the government and its citizens.”
The seven-month Shin Bet investigation has widened into an apparently interlinked scandal, dubbed Qatargate, which threatens to bring down Netanyahu. The prime minister has duly sacked Ronen Bar, the head of the agency investigating him.
The story is, in other words, complex, extremely murky and explosive.
Now consider the response of Ipso, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which was set up after the Leveson Inquiry and is supposed to monitor standards in the newspapers it regulates.
The body, chaired by a former Conservative peer, Lord Faulks, has been monitoring the JC for some time due to the significant number of complaints about the paper dating back to 2019.
In 2022, he refused to launch a standards inquiry, arguing a) that the paper had a new owner and b) that the staff had undergone Ipso training. It is not clear that Lord Faulks had any idea who the owner was.
Fast-forward to 2025. Once again, Ipso has considered investigating the JC but, once again, decided against it. The JC apparently told Ipso’s top sleuths that the explanation for its catastrophic mistake was “unexpected staff absences.”
After talking to JC staff, Ipso felt it had a “good understanding of what had occurred and why.” It does not let us into the secret.
It noted that—as in 2022—JC staff had agreed to more Ipso training—yes, even more Ipso training. Perhaps including how to make better staff rotas.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
The Leveson Inquiry sat for 100 days, produced a report of around 2,000 pages and cost around £5m. A new regulator, Ipso, was the main outcome—a body with supposedly more bite than its toothless predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission, and the power to launch investigations where there are patterns of editorial concern. It can theoretically fine publishers up to £1m.
In fact, in its 10 years of existence, it has launched no standards investigations and fined no one.
You would not guess from Ipso’s most recent statement that the successful mission to plant a story in the JC appears to have owed more to black ops than rota mishaps. Indeed, there is nothing at all about the massive Shin Bet inquiry into the affair, or the political background in Israel.
In deciding not to launch a standards inquiry into the paper in 2022 Lord Faulks took great comfort from the new ownership of the JC. Does he have any idea who they are? If so, should he not tell us? If not, why should he place any trust in them?
Did Jake Wallis Simons jump, or was he pushed? If Lord Faulks has asked, he does not tell us. Who appointed the new editor, Daniel Schwammenthal? Companies House tells us that the two current directors are [Lord] Ian Austin, a former Labour MP, and Jonathan Kandel, a “senior tax consultant.” Was it them? Or the owner?
Do Messrs Austin and Kandel have overall editorial control? If not, who does? The Ipso report suggests neither man was spoken to. Did anyone speak to Robbie Gibb, who quit shortly before the fabricated report was published?
Lord Austin takes a keen interest in the BBC’s coverage of Israel, recently demanding that executives who oversaw a recent much-criticised Gaza programme “should be sacked for the very serious professional and moral failings.” But of the professional and moral failings of the JC he has to date said nothing.
Did Lord Faulks’s team of investigators speak to any of the four distinguished columnists—David Baddiel, Jonathan Freedland, David Aaronovitch and Hadley Freeman—who refused to go on writing for the paper after the Elon Perry debacle? Their concerns about the standards at the paper went far beyond one dud article.
What about speaking to another contributor (for more than 50 years), Professor Colin Schindler, who also decided he could no longer write for the paper after discovering a “darker side” to the fabricated story? He wrote: “This whole sorry affair reflected the JC’s unquestioning willingness to accept anything that chimed with its sensationalist agenda.”
At the time he quit, Freedland wrote: “The latest scandal brings great disgrace on the paper—publishing fabricated stories and showing only the thinnest form of contrition—but it is only the latest. Too often, the JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgements political rather than journalistic.”
In his letter to Wallis Simons he added: “The problem in this case is that there can be no real accountability because the JC is owned by a person or people who refuse to reveal themselves. As you know, I and others have long urged transparency, making that case to you privately—but nothing has happened.”
And now nothing has happened all over again. There is still no real accountability. Looks like Lord Leveson was wasting his time.
